Abortion is Wrong

Perhaps I need to reconsider my opinion. Some very good counter points have been made.

By "easily prove it" I simply meant by a report from a medical examiner or investigating officer. But I suppose there's the issue of distinguishing between rape and forceful sex.

I'm sorry if my comments have offended anyone.

I'll read and learn from here on on this one.

Edit: I'd like to add that my opinion of legislation still stands.
 
I was just thinking about your comparison in a different way. If I'm on you're back/handcuffed you could certainly kill me jumping off a bridge, playing with traffic etc. But couldn't I do the same? Also, I could maybe choke you out too
 
The case for abortion would be a lot easier to make if less women used it as a form of contraception rather than the regrettable emergency measure it should be.
 
Yo, I didn't mean to be rude or imply that you should stop posting. I think you're wrong, and I'm glad that you're reconsidering your opinion, but I don't think that you've been offensive in this thread. Just wrong (because I'm always right). :P
 
This is one of the logical progressions from the "It's my choice alone" line of thinking from the more rabid Pro-Choice candidates
 
I completely misread that and misplace a consonant....I nearly spat my drink out!
 
Well, I don't like to think that I'm rabid, but I would say that at that point there is a child to be taken care of, regardless of what anyone wants, someone needs to pay for it. Should it be the state instead?
 
I am not saying its correct, but if you say "only I can tell you whether I am having a baby or not" then it follows logically that only YOU can bring it up then

For me, you make a baby you pay for a baby - either with money or preferably with time, affection and sleep deprivation

It is also worth noting a like to play DA on many issues fo this nature because really and truly my opinions vascilate wildly from day to day...a bit like my opinion of the death penalty
 
I don't think that it does follow that closely. To me it seems to break down on a couple points -

1) As of insemination, the man has completed 100% of the activity necessary to create a child, the woman still has 9 months to go.

2) I don't think that future financial considerations should grant someone power in making medical decisions for someone else.

3) We don't let women abandon financial support for children either, as far as I'm aware.
 
If he wasn't using protection then that's his problem as well so he still has 50% of the responsibility.

If he didn't want a child he should have been using protection.

Simple
 
This is a common pro-lifer refrain, but is there any evidence that more than a tiny number of women have had multiple abortions?
 
A woman has 50% off the responsibilty over the conception and 100% responsibility over what happens next. Finances are one of the considerations that should be taken into account when you decide to have a child and if you've been made perfectly aware that whoever you banged has no interest in being a part of it then that has to factor into your decision. If you decide to go ahead and have it anyway then you can't claim to be a victim. You knew its what would happen.

There's no reason to force a woman who doesn't want to be a mother to be one, and I don't see a decent reason to force a man who doesn't want to be a father to be one either. Can argue semantics over whether paying money counts as "fatherhood" but its the best word I could think of.
 
I really don't know to be honest...but anecdotally my wife teaches teenage girls and a disturbing number have had abortions.
They haven't had multiple ones I think maybe because the first one wakes them up a bit?
 
Why is an abortion any more or less regrettable than any other form of contraception?

Why is it an emergency procedure only?

It is a way to terminate a pregnancy, that's all. Just like contraception is a way to prevent a pregnancy.

They are both morally neutral acts.
 
All the discussion so far just makes me think, "don't have sex if you don't know how to have sex without having a kid." Which leads me to conclude that education on sex, where methods used to have kids and methods used to get the pleasure without the kids needs to be covered.

If education on the subject was addressed first, I find it hard to think that such fury over debate on abortions would be necessary.
 
It's simple. If you don't want to be a father then don't take part in sex acts where the result could be a baby. If you do take part then be willing to accept the consequences of your actions.
 
Don't take my postulate as absolute, or even my belief. It is more about raising the issue of a fathers role/input into the process.

Both go into it willingly (rape aside) so the decision to abort or otherwise should be discussed. Ultimately the woman has the final say - as it should be - but to discount the father's feelings, role and opinion relegates him to the rank of "sperm donor" and if that is indeed the case then his function has been fulfilled.

Similarly the ability to just abort without a consultation/discussion discounts the feelings and affection of the father for either the mother or the unborn. Reducing it to a simple case of biology (my body, my choice) is disingenuous. It is a moral, emotional a philosophical minefield

This is not saying anyone can tell anyone else what to do woth their body, mpre that as complex social organisms we have a requirement to look at totality
 
Back
Top